For generations, historians have lauded the friendship that existed
between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill as being a crucial
element that made the wartime alliance between the United States and
Great Britain a success. But apparently there are some people who
aren’t as happy about the prospect of close relations between a would-
be U.S. president and the head of the government of one of America’s
closest allies. The New York Times devoted a portion of the cover of
its Sunday edition and considerable space inside to a feature that
detailed the ties between likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that go back to
the 1970’s when both were young men working at the Boston Consulting
Group. According to the Times, this has some people worried that too
much “deference” on Romney’s part to Netanyahu would “influence
decision making” and possibly “subcontract Middle East policy to
Israel.”

This potential smear invokes two of the hoary canards of anti-Israel
invective: the dual loyalty charge (usually lodged against American
Jews) and the notion that a politician is pandering to the pro-Israel
community for votes (in this case, evangelical Christians are the
more likely candidates for influence than the more liberal Jews). But
the idea that Romney is suspect because he has a longstanding
friendship with the Israeli prime minister is absurd. Allies are
supposed to be friends or at least ought to be able to understand
each other and speak frankly about potential conflicts. Given that
President Obama spent the first three years of his presidency picking
fights with Netanyahu that did nothing to enhance America’s strategic
position or the Middle East peace process, wouldn’t Romney’s ability
to communicate without rancor with the Israeli be an advantage rather
than a cause of suspicion?

Close allies and friends can disagree and often do as did Roosevelt
and Churchill. We imagine the same would apply to Romney and
Netanyahu. The idea that a Romney administration would “subcontract
Middle East policy to Israel” is nonsense. The U.S. is always going
to view events through the prism of its own specific interests, as
does Israel. But problems arise not so much because of the existence
of these different frames of reference but from a failure of leaders
to be able to communicate their positions and to understand those of
their ally’s. In this case, the ability of Romney and Netanyahu to
understand each other’s thinking will enhance not only the security
of Israel but of the United States.

With Obama, whose lack of affinity for Israel is obvious and distaste
for Netanyahu is a matter of public record, the prime minister has
good reason to doubt the word of the president when he asks Israel to
forbear from taking certain actions or to defer to America’s wishes.
It is possible that Romney would have far more latitude to press the
Israelis because, as was the case between George W. Bush and Ariel
Sharon, there will be a strong sense of trust. Whether that would
work out to Israel’s benefit is an open question, but at a time when
both nations are facing a deadly nuclear threat from Iran, more trust
and communication between Washington and Jerusalem is certainly to be
welcomed.

It is true that some found Romney’s debate line in which disparaged
Newt Gingrich’s quip about the Palestinians being an invented people
disturbing. Romney said, “Before I made a statement of that nature,
I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it
help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’” But it makes
perfect sense that any American president would wish to confer with
the prime minister of Israel before launching any barb at the
Palestinians, let alone a policy change. That is not the case with
Obama, who has frequently sought to ambush the Israeli.

Lest anyone think Romney and Netanyahu are blood brothers, the Times
feature ought to make it clear the two have not exactly been in
constant contact since they first met in 1976. They knew and admired
each other as successful young men working together but only renewed
that friendship many years later after Romney was elected governor of
Massachusetts. The fact that Romney worked for a time with
Netanyahu’s second wife Fleur Cates, something that the Times throws
in for ballast, is irrelevant to this discussion as he divorced her
almost 30 years ago.

The only way a close knowledge and good relationship with Israel’s
prime minister could be considered a drawback in an American
president is if you thought there was something questionable about
the alliance between the two countries in the first place. Those who
promote the Walt-Mearsheimer Israel Lobby canard about U.S.
supporters of Israel being disloyal to the United States will, no
doubt, regard the Romney-Netanyahu friendship as a reason to vote
against the Republican. They will, no doubt prefer a president like
Obama who sees an Islamist such as Turkey’s Recey Tayyip Erdoğan as
the sort of foreign leader he feels more comfortable with. But for
the vast majority of Americans who think of Israel in much the same
way as they once thought of Britain — as a wartime ally — it will be
one more argument in Romney’s favor.